The foreskin contains a tremendous amount of nerve endings, and can permanently damage the genitals with it's removal at a young age. It is also a religious practice that has it's origins in judaism, and was primarily used to prevent masturbation in children and reduce sexual pleasure. It is the exact same thing.

Actually the clitoris contains more nerve endings than the foreskin.
And the process of female circumcision is often done in a much more savage way. _ " It may take place in a hospital, but is usually performed without anaesthesia by a traditional circumciser using a knife, razor or scissors."_
.
To make female and male circumcisions equal you would have to cut off the glans of the penis with a pair of scissors without anaesthesia.

they may not be completely equal as to the degree of damage, but the fact is they are both mutilations performed on children that originate from religious drive to reduce sexual pleasure, and both should generate disgust in the populace and be banned as a routine practice. The USA is the only non-theocratic country that still performs circumscisions with any regularity, and it's time we caught the **** up on basic human rights.

It's called female genital MUTILATION for a reason. Normally, when the procedure is performed, the child is 4 years old or older. It's performed by muslims, making it a religious practice, done to lower desire and the chances of "infidelity". No anesthesia is used. In some cases everything but a hole for urination and menstruation is removed. This practice causes SEVERAL health problems for the woman later in life, including recurrent urinary and vaginal infections, chronic pain, infertility, fatal hemorrhaging, epidermoid cysts, and complications during childbirth.

Circumcisions are performed with anesthetic. Only the foreskin is removed. It's performed at a young age, normally before the first birthday, and while it is common with Judaism, it can also be a personal preference and have no ties to religion. Circumcisions also prevent medical conditions like urinary tract infections and lower the risk of penile cancer, HPV, STD's, and HIV.

ALL of the information you presented on circumcision is incorrect EXCEPT the age of the baby. There is no evidence of a reduction of danger from circumcision of any of those diseases, and in fact the evidence points to uncircumcised men having better immunity to catching HIV. Furthermore, the damage done is permanent, regardless, and it is a mutilation of the genitals. You are cutting into and removing the flesh of the male genitals. They are the same thing.

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

Let's operate on the premise that you're right about it reducing the risk of HIV, just for the sake of argument. Does that make using a knife on a baby's genitals to remove a portion of them, while they are a baby and are unable to make that choice, in some way NOT genital mutilation? Does that take away the effectiveness of a condom in preventing STDs, which can be worn regardless of foreskin? No, of course it doesn't. The fact is, either way, you are CHOPPING UP A BABY'S PENIS to please either a societal asthetic concern or a relgious one, and it is a practice that must stop being inflicted on those who cannot make the decision for themselves.

You're comparing removing extra skin (while anesthetized) that's not required, and frankly, not that common in today's society with completely gutting a vagina, removing all the pleasurable parts for a woman, using no anesthesia.

Arguments can be made that they are both done against the will of the child, however, seriously think about the repercussions. They're not the same. I didn't lose any sleep over missing my foreskin. My lack of foreskin hasn't given me any less pleasure. I was a baby, the procedure was painless, and I don't have any nightmares over it. I must admit, the whole thing was pretty pleasant for me and made my life easier because I don't have to have any extra cleaning in the shower.

Now, take a 4 year old girl. Imagine she has to have the procedure performed on her because her parents want to make sure she's not going to be unfaithful to her future husband. They cut out parts of her reproductive organs, without using anesthesia. Imagine the nightmares she'll have in the future.

You can't honestly think that these are the same. A little bit of foreskin vs. an entire vagina.

False, circumcision is the removal of around 10,000 nerve endings from the end of the penis, it does reduce sexual pleasure. Furthermore, both practices involve the cutting into and alteration of the genitals of either sex, without consent of the party being cut. Ethically they are the same, even if yes, you are right that female genital mutilation does have far worse overall effects.